Jump to content
Greta

Carbon Offset Payments

Recommended Posts

Well ! - I'm glad that stirred up a hornets nest of opinions... I believe that the science of Global Warming / Climate Change is now irrefutable - it is just a matter of both personal opinion & collective action what our future holds. We either carry on regardless or begin to modify our behaviour. I'm not wanting to spoil anyone's fun - just prompting all to consider what they / we can or should do?
I hear those that are sceptical about the efficacy of Carbon Offset schemes but have gained a little insight with the help of our own UK Woodlands Trust ... charity begins at home!

 

Your calculations look pretty robust – just check 1,000 = £3.75 so 1 mile = 0.375p so if you want to round to your generous figure of 1p/mile that’s fine.

0.25 tonnes of Carbon per 1000 miles driven – then …….

1 tonne CO2 = 4000 miles

1 tonne CO2 = £15

0.25 tonnes = £3.75

1000 miles = £3.75

1 mile = 0.375p
 

On their authority an average car generates about 1 tonne of  COevery 1000 miles - at these rates of Carbon Offset - I'm sure we can all consider making donations towards planting  & conserving UK Woodlands. I hope to be able to develop a scheme by which we can together begin to make a difference. If anyone else is interested in helping me further this initiative please do get in touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Greta said:

I believe that the science of Global Warming / Climate Change is now irrefutable

Agreed.  I fear wider humanity is too stupid to do anything about it until it's too late though.

Thanks for Woodland trust link..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon offset cash for tree planting has been used to plant palm oil  trees...after destroying the rain forest.

Woodland Trust is laudable both for conservation and creative conservation - I'm a member. But tree planing as a global solution too cc wont work, the land is needed to feed an ever growing infestation of humans. Until our population crashes I cannot see any solution to cc, either 'green' or technically inspired. I've posted this before, but maybe not on here. It  shows how cultivatable land, water resource decline (even before effects of cc are embraced) such that 9 billion can only be sustained if we all become veggies.

http://www.rogueweed.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FOOD-SECURITY-and-CLIMATE-CHANGE.pdf

To me it look like a race to the bottom this century. If population grows then cc will be worst. Alternatively, if a pandemic cull happens soon ( or cull triggered by geological disaster eg a big equatorial volcano, or crop disease pandemic), cc may be lessened. The complexity arises from cc itself impacting crop growth or drought and raising risks of mega-migrations and disease spread. Its an experiment in existence. However, for those zones where the direct threat from cc is managebable a pandemic cull occurring sooner would hopefully slow cc such that runaway heating by methane release does not happen. But....most of the worst CO2 emmitters are in technologically adept societires less likely to be culled. So mega-cull or not it looks like the huge uncertainties in the impact of cc are with us to stay. Our bequeathal to the grandchildren

Peter

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 9:52 PM, zetecspit said:

I am afraid I need to explain what my point was.

Too many people were promoting scare stories that have proved to be untrue. That means many many people will be saying that CC is nonsense, or at least do not take it seriously. So I would suggest those who made those outlandish predictions have made the situation worse. After all, if those men in white coats got it so wrong then, why should be believe them now?

It needed a less headline grabbing, but more honest approach 30 years ago. Then people would be more inclined to do something now...

Thast why, for about ten years, we heard little from cc scientists. it was their deliberate decision not to get embroiled in public discussion about numbers few non-scientists grasped. The risk of the public becoming desensitised to the cc was also a consideration. But emmissions are not coming down, thr risk of severe cc is rising and the self imposed moratorium has ended. But desensitisatin is still a big concern.

I keep and eye on the science, and cannot recall any measurments predicitng the impact of cc will be less than thought ten years ago. There was a scare about the AMOC ( Gulf Stream) slowing but better measurements are resolving that.  Myself, I doubt GW will be kept to 1.5 or even 2C, such is the free market dominance of trade and economies. When societies stop regarding growth in GDP as a good thing, combatting cc could start to happen. But we have yet to see a democracy that voted for "less tomorrow ".

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 9:52 PM, zetecspit said:

After all, if those men in white coats got it so wrong then, why should be believe them now?

We should believe them because as time goes on they learn more and have a better understanding
of the evidence presented.

Today nobody believes that barnacles turn into Barnacle Geese.....

 

Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hamish said:

But all Canada geese still come from Canada right??

Yes, all they Canada geese originally came from Canada.
Humans took them (in considerable numbers) to various Southern Hemisphere countries and also to Europe.

In fact Europeans took loads of different species to the Southern Hemisphere
(from memory during Victorian times 39 species were introduced to New Zealand and today about half thrive there
including Canada Geese!).

 

Ian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oldtuckunder said:

you may, can is a question only you can answer :whistling:

Alan

You so remind me of my mother !

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sprint95m said:

Yes, all they Canada geese originally came from Canada.
Humans took them (in considerable numbers) to various Southern Hemisphere countries and also to Europe.

In fact Europeans took loads of different species to the Southern Hemisphere
(from memory during Victorian times 39 species were introduced to New Zealand and today about half thrive there
including Canada Geese!).

 

Ian.

 

They took rabbits and rats, then convicts, or were.....!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick

I was always being corrected on my use of grammar and on the whole it has paid off.

Alan is quite correct in this case and I should have used 'may' instead of 'can'.

One repeated bugbear is use of 'best', when it relates to two items being compared ....I could go on!

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.... grammar...... meh.....

Having attended a mixture of US and UK "led" schools during my primary education, my grammar and spelling of certain words got scrambled early on.  I still managed a B in Eng Lang. at O-level.  Even now, certain web-based and microsoft-oriented spell checkers give me pause, in spite of the last of the US language variant indoctrinators being at least 45 years in my past.  She was a FIERCE woman....... and also a firm believer in spare the rod and spoil the child....... bloody missionaries! :ohmy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked the qurztion before, in other places, but I'm happy to ask it again;

 

Why is no one mentioning methane?

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

my cynical mind would suggest that CO2 is easier to attack and tax.

If you ask any school child what is that white stuff coming out the top of power stations they will all say CO2 - it is bl**dy steam in most cases.

Methane comes from strange places and attacking them would drop you in the Sh*t.

 

Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methane comes from a myriad of places and processes, many involving bacterial decay. Leaf litter on a woodland floor, bubbling up through ponds and lakes from decaying plant matter on the floor, slurry pits, dung heaps, fugitive emissions from AD plants, flatulence of most animals (Kangaroos are low emissions animals apparently), but especially cows and animals with similar digestive systems.

Taxing methane could be seen as a fart tax.... not a vote winner!

Like CO2 it’s as old as the planet, and arguably its cycle is less directly disrupted by mans activities than the CO2 cycle. The scary thing about methane is that there are huge deposits of it stored as clathrates in frozen soil and sediment deposits in artic regions, dependent on cold to keep them stored. And they are becoming unstable due to warming. If they start to escape they will contribute to the greenhouse effect and lead to further warming and further escape..... mmmmm, positive feedback :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already a fart tax in my house,usually involving banishment to the spare room.

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

In a separate conversation, I was looking for data to estimate the release of methane from the Siberian Tundra and Siberian Arctic Shelf - I recall that there is an educated guess that 50Gt of methane is held in the subterranean strata, but that interruptions to the permafrost risk an abrupt release event.  The argument seemed to be that such a event could increase the global atmospheric volume of methane by between five and ten times the current amount.

Do you happen to have come across this?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PaulAA said:

Peter

In a separate conversation, I was looking for data to estimate the release of methane from the Siberian Tundra and Siberian Arctic Shelf - I recall that there is an educated guess that 50Gt of methane is held in the subterranean strata, but that interruptions to the permafrost risk an abrupt release event.  The argument seemed to be that such a event could increase the global atmospheric volume of methane by between five and ten times the current amount.

Do you happen to have come across this?

Paul

No

But, now you have raised the subject, I am going to try and find some info . . Ta.

 

Note

Working this week, so web based didcussions/arguments and tantrums will be curtailed.  Normal service resumes next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 6:48 PM, PaulAA said:

Peter

In a separate conversation, I was looking for data to estimate the release of methane from the Siberian Tundra and Siberian Arctic Shelf - I recall that there is an educated guess that 50Gt of methane is held in the subterranean strata, but that interruptions to the permafrost risk an abrupt release event.  The argument seemed to be that such a event could increase the global atmospheric volume of methane by between five and ten times the current amount.

Do you happen to have come across this?

Paul

Paul, I havent seen those numbers. Methane has about 30 times the global warming potential of CO2, measured over 100 years. Water vapour is even more effective than CO2, but it can form clouds that reflect heat back to space.Swings, roundabouts. I find Its so difficult to try get a feel for how the gas numbers relate to GW.  Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...